When Mr Jindal from Narela bought a new MG Astor CVT automatic car on October 26, 2022, for Rs 18.23 lakh, he never imagined that just seven months later, alleged TPMS and ESCL failures in the car would on two occasions cause problems during family trips, leading to a nearly three-year legal battle with MG Motor at the North Delhi District Consumer Commission for a refund and compensation.
Additionally, Jindal had also bought MG Shield Warranty Extension and MG Shield RSA (Road Side Assistance) Extension plans which were valid from October 27, 2022 to October 27, 2027.
There were two incidents involving Jindal's car
- On May 3, 2023, while driving from Delhi to Dehradun, he had a tyre puncture but the Tyre Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) failed to alert him because three of its sensors were faulty. MG Delhi service centre charged him Rs 3,000 and replaced the faulty TPMS sensors. Once the TPMS were changed he serviced the car there.
- On June 5, 2023, while driving from Delhi to Gangotri Dham, he encountered a problem with the Electronic Steering Column Lock (ESCL) indicating a failure in the anti-theft steering lock mechanism, He called MG Motors and was directed to the Dehradun service centre. They gave him some on-call instructions which got the car started. While driving to the Dehradun service centre, the steering got jammed on and resulted in an accident.
Once the accident was reported to the Dehdradun MG service centre, they took more than 10 hours to send a technician to the accident site and take the car to the service centre at Dehradoon.
Jindal had requested for a loaner car while his car got fixed but the technician who came to accident site to pick up his car, demanded Rs 10,000 for the loaner car. Since Jindal refused to pay the money, he did not receive any car. So, he was left stranded at the accident site with his family members including minor children.
Very dissatisfied with the car, Jindal sent a legal notice from his advocate on June 21, 2023, which remained unanswered. Thereafter, he filed a consumer complaint on July 27, 2023, with the North Delhi Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the Tis Hazari Court complex (Consumer Complaint No.: DC/80/RBT/CC/54/2024).
Jindal's advocate argued before the consumer commission that if MG Motors had provided on-site assistance when the ESCL fault was reported, the vehicle would not have met with an accident. Jindal's advocate argued that MG Motors' insistence on bringing the vehicle to the nearest service centre had led to the accident as the steering wheel got jammed, causing the accident.
Jindal's advocate argued that not honouring the warranty and road side assistance is a deficiency of service which led to the accident.
MG Motors' advocates argued that Jindal had alleged manufacturing defects in the car in question, but did not file any expert report as the vehicle was never examined by an expert. So, according to MG Motors' advocates, the allegations of manufacturing defects in the vehicle could not be proved.
The Consumer Commission after hearing oth the parties said that it is indeed a fact that the vehicle in question was not examined by a technical expert. However, it is also a fact that the vehicle reported TPMS and ESCL faults at different times. The consumer commission said that both these faults cannot be attributed to the issues in driving of the car. These defects point towards instrumental and software failure in the electronic system of the vehicle in question.
The consumer commission said: "Mechanical and electronic failures cannot be attributed to the driving style of the driver of the vehicle."
Ultimately, the district consumer commission passed a judgement in Jindal's favour and ordered MG Motors to refund Rs 18.23 lakh with an interest at 7% p.a. since the date of filing of this complaint. i.e. July 26, 2023 and Rs 4 lakh in compensation.
At the time of this case's judgement, the car was still lying in the Dehradun service centre and since it has been more than three years, the consumer commission said that they cannot order MG to repair the car and make it road worthy as other issues might have cropped up due to such long idle time.
Keep reading to know how Jindal won this case.
Advocate Gaurav Gaur, practicing in Delhi High Court said that in his view, an expert report is not mandatory in every consumer dispute. In the present case, the admitted defects, service history and failure of the manufacturer to provide warranty support constituted sufficient evidence for the consumer commission to hold the manufacturer liable for deficiency in service and manufacturing defect.
North Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order and discussion
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) of the North Delhi consumer commission passed this judgement on May 8, 2026.
MG alleges Jindal never gave approval for a thorough examination but email evidence suggests the service center sought approval for insurance
The consumer commission sent notice to both the dealer and MG Motors. In its reply, MG Motors (vehicle manufacturer) admitted that their call centre received a call from Jindal on June 5, 2023 regarding a "glowing light" on the car panel.
MG Motors also said that their representative duly advised Jindal to report the car to the nearest service centre but denied any knowledge about the lock of the steering wheel while driving the car to Dehradoon. However, MG Motors admitted that the car was towed to the workshop at Dehradoon.
MG Motors also pleaded before the consumer commission that Jindal never gave any approval for thorough examination of the vehicle. In support of their argument, the car maker relied on emails sent by the workshop at Dehradoon.
The consumer commission said that on reading these emails, it was found that the workshop was seeking approval from Jindal about initiating an insurance claim process to conduct repair of the vehicle in question. The workshop never sought approval for conducting thorough examination of the vehicle as alleged.
Car dealer says they are not responsible for any alleged manufacturing defect
The car dealer in its reply to the consumer commission notice stated that they have sold the vehicle but in case of any alleged manufacturing defect in the car, the responsibility lies with MG Motors, the manufacturer and not them (dealer).
Despite service centre having the vehicle for three years, they did not try to ascertain the cause of TPMS and ESCL faults
The consumer commission said that MG Motors did not examine the car in question although the said car was lying in the workshop at Dehradoon. The consumer commission said that if MG Motors had examined the car to ascertain the reason for malfunctioning of the TPMS and/ or ESCL faults, MG Motors would have been in a better position to point out the exact cause for the accident.
The consumer commission said: "However, despite having the vehicle in its workshop, the OP-1 (MG Motors) has not examined the vehicle in question on the false pretext that the Complainant had not allowed thorough examination of the vehicle."
In fact, the consumer commission pointed out that OP-1 (MG Motors) or its workshop had never sought permission from the complainant (Jindal) for a thorough examination of the vehicle, but had sought permission to initiate an insurance claim process for repair of the vehicle.
MG Motors has failed to address the defects in the vehicle
The consumer commission said they are of the opinion that opposite parties, particularly OP-1 (MG Motors) did not provide reasonable services to the complainant (Jindal).
The consumer commission said: "OP-1 (MG Motors) has failed not only in addressing the defects in the vehicle in question as reported to it by the Complainant (Jindal), but has also failed to honour the warranty and road side assistance services to the Complainant when required."
The consumer commission also said that it is a fact that the defects in the vehicle are electronic and mechanical in nature and cannot be attributed to the driving style or habit of the driver/ user of the vehicle.
Consumer commission deems the defects as manufacturing defect
The consumer commission said that although there is no independent technical report available with their Commission to establish manufacturing defects in the car in question, the defects so alleged by the Complainant (Jindal) are in the nature of manufacturing defect.
The consumer commission said: "Hence, we are of the opinion that there exists a manufacturing defect in the car in question and also that the OP-1 has failed to provide necessary services under its warranty and road side assistance plans to the Complainant."
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, the consumer commission held that OP-1 (MG Motors) is responsible for the deficiency of service as well as for selling the vehicle having manufacturing defects.
Consumer Commission order
The consumer commission said that the vehicle in question has been lying at Dehradoon workshop since June 5, 2023 without being repaired and it is almost three years now. So the vehicle, left in the workshop without being repaired, must have developed irreparable defects, hence, directing the OP-1 (MG Motors) to repair the vehicle and returning it to the Complainant (Jindal) in road-worthy condition would not be a practical solution.
Thus the consumer commission ordered MG Motors to:
- Refund the purchase value of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs 18,23,228 to the Complainant along with an interest @ 7% PA since the date of filing of this complaint. i.e. 26.07.2023 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The said vehicle in question shall remain in possession of the OP-1 (MG Motors), which shall be at liberty to dispose of the vehicle in question.
- OP-1 was also directed to pay Rs 4,00,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the Complainant.
- In view of the fact that the vehicle will remain in possession of the OP-1, the complainant, after receiving the payments from the OP-1, shall extend all support to the OP-1 or to its agent for getting the registration of vehicle cancelled/ transferred.
- Complainant (Jindal) is also directed to provide all necessary No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from including from the financer of the vehicle, if any, to the OP-1 (MG Motors) at the time of cancellation/ transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in question.
